What is Digg?182 Comments
- Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -5/+192So let me get this straight:
The executive branch of the USA government is accused of illegally spying on its own citizens.
To investigate this, somebody sues the private organisation that is alleged to be helping them.
This is supposed to work because the judicial branch and executive branch of the government are separated, so the judicial branch shouldn't be covering for the executive branch.
...and somehow the executive branch can interfere with the judicial branch and simply dismiss cases it doesn't like? I thought the USA government was set up in separate branches to prevent things like this? - curtissthompson, on 10/12/2007, -12/+138It's America, illegal acts, especially those of the president go on all the time. Not just President Bush (which has never broken the law in a justifiable manner in my opinion)! Take for example President Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclaimation, no where in the Constitution does the president have such a right to declare such a document without Congressional approval! But the fact of the matter is it has gone on throughout history, but has only come to the attention today to people, due to the media, and the unjustifiable reasonings behind such illegal acts today. Whether acts like this whether righteous or immoral should or should not be allowed is another debate all together, the fact of the matter is that the Congress no longer has any sort of backbone to go against the president today, nor does just about anyone else for that matter (with the exception of Sen. Russ Feingold)! The government as it was intended to be, created by the founding fathers of this great nation, is in great need of reformation, as the entire system of checks and balances, and voting/the Electoral College have in my opinion failed in modern times, and rightly we need reformation of such systems, or to completely introduce new systems to replace them. It may seem like a bit of a radical view, but when it comes down to it, it isn't....it was Thomas Jefferson that said we should throw out our constitution about every 20 years in search of a better way, and as a deterant for corruption. [Sorry that got a little of topic, but it does relate to how our government works in modern times and how this shouldn't come as a surprise to Americans]
- itistoday, on 10/12/2007, -13/+84@curtissthompson,
I understand your point, and I agree with most of it, but you have to admit that at least Lincoln wasn't a flaming imbecile, and unlike Bush, he was fighting _for_ freedom, not against it. Also, unlike Bush, he had very good reason for his actions (he had a Civil War on his hands after all), in his own words (something like this): "It's better to break part of the Constitution than to lose all of it"
(anyone have the exact quote?) - ezway, on 10/12/2007, -4/+73"The best weapon of a dictatorship is secrecy,
but the best weapon of a democracy
should be the weapon of openness."
—Niels Bohr - johnnylin, on 10/12/2007, -15/+83"Not just President Bush (which has never broken the law in a justifiable manner in my opinion)!"
Curtis,
President Bush has violated the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) when he chose to spy on US citizens without obtaining a warrant from the courts. - johndi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+54"[T]he fact that the United States will assert the state secrets privilege should
not be construed as a confirmation or denial of any of Plaintiffs allegations, either about AT&T or the alleged surveillance activities," the filing reads. "When allegations are made about purported classified government activities or relationships, regardless of whether those allegations are accurate, the existence or non-existence of the activity or relationship is potentially a state secret."
Ain't that a twisted bunch of Orwellian doublespeak. - fu_fish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+39"...and somehow the executive branch can interfere with the judicial branch and simply dismiss cases it doesn't like? I thought the USA government was set up in separate branches to prevent things like this?"
Actually, in the last article I read on the subject it was pointed out that the courts do not have to accept the presidential order. There is a review to make sure that the executive branch is within it's right to have a case dismissed, but I believe, although I am not certain, that the court has never gone against the request of the president. - subversive1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+34OH NOES!!! You sheep still actually believe that the executive branch or any other branch of our gov't is actually for the people? I submit this for your perusal: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=plutocracy
- johnnylin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+33@pseudojd:
just because the president signs a document passed by Congress does not give him the right or authority to ignore it any time he wishes. by your logic, the president is allowed to bypass ANY LAW congress passes, as long as a president signed the bill or act. FISA was an ACT, not an executive order. By saying that the president can ignore or supercede anything that he signed gives the president essentially UNLIMITED authority.
and according to history, that's not a good thing. - kristov, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29The constant attempts to rationalize and cover-up for Bush continues to amaze me. We are now going back to saying "But look at how bad Lincoln was....." ?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -12/+39I see Americans have discovered a bottle of Pwnage 1776, a very good year. The fraud of freedumb & democrazy has gone long enough, people need to accept the US government as a regime like any other.
- tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25@curtissthompson
To build on rboyce point, I quote from the wikipedia article on the Emancipation Proclamation some salient points.
"On April 10, 1862, Congress declared that the federal government would compensate slave owners who freed their slaves...On June 19, 1862, Congress prohibited slavery in United States territories...The Proclamation was issued in two parts. The first part, issued on September 22, 1862...second part, which officially went into effect January 1, 1863."
Thus, as far as timing goes, the EP was in accord with Congress. Moreover,
"Lincoln himself had declared he had no constitutional authority to free the slaves...the proclamation was a military order issued by Lincoln in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief...It was Abraham Lincoln's declaration that all slaves in all states which had seceded from the Union and which had not returned to federal control by January 1, 1863 would be emancipated.
"The Emancipation Proclamation itself had limited immediate effect upon slavery, except as territory in Confederate states came under Union control."
amazing what a little bit of research can to a pre-concived notion. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+25Notra Trulock
In February 2002 it was invoked in the case of Notra Trulock, who launched a defamation suit against Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee, charged with stealing nuclear secrets; President Bush stated that national security would be compromised if Trulock were allowed to seek damages from Lee; though it resulted in the case being dismissed, another suit was launched directly attacking then-FBI Director Louis Freeh for interfering and falsely invoking the State Secrets Privilege.
Sibel Edmonds
The privilege was invoked twice against Sibel Edmonds. The first invocation was to prevent her from testifying that the Federal Government had foreknowledge that Al-Qaeda intended to use airliners to attack the United States in 2001; the case was a $100 trillion action filed in 2002 by six hundred 9/11 victims' families against officials of the Saudi government and prominent Saudi citizens. The second invocation was in an attempt to derail her personal lawsuit regarding her dismissal from the FBI, where she had worked as a post-9/11 translator and had been a whistleblower.
Maher Arar
The privilege was invoked against a case where Maher Arar, a wrongfully-accused and tortured victim sought to sue Attorney General John Ashcroft for his role in deporting Arar to Syria to face torture and extract false confessions. It was formally invoked by Deputy Attorney General James B. Comey in legal papers filed in the Eastern District of New York. The invocation read "Litigating [the] plaintiff's complaint would necessitate disclosure of classified information", which it later stated included disclosure of the basis for detaining him in the first place, the basis for refusing to deport him to Canada as he had requested, and the basis for sending him to Syria.
Crater Corporation
The privilege was invoked in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit case of Crater Corporation vs. Lucent Technologies Inc. and AT&T Company, (Crater Corp. v. Lucent Technologies, September 7, 2005). Crater was prevented from proceeding with discovery in its patent infringement case (U.S. Patent No. 5,286,129) by the United States' assertion that discovery could cause "extremely grave damage to national security". The infringement case centered on WetMate underwater fiber optic coupling devices beneath the sea. - rboyce, on 10/12/2007, -3/+27FYI, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to Confederate territory. This was technically legal because the Union was at war with the Confederacy, leaving Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief of the military. (There was an ACTUAL declaration of war, unlike in current times.)
BTW, it seems pretty inaccurate to compare domestic spying to emancipation of slaves. - Democritus2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+23I have a feeling this will go to the Supreme Court. Of course Bush owns that as well.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This privilege has been invoked only 60 times since its inception in 1953. In the original case, United States v. Reynolds the presiding Judge said "Because it is so powerful and can trample legitimate claims against the government, the state secrets privilege is not to be lightly invoked".
They must be joking to believe they can invoke it and then say that doing so doesn't mean that the EFF's allegations are accurate. Of course they are, otherwise every dumbass who filed a suit about anything remotely relating to national security would be subject to this filling, and I'm telling you now, that has certainly happened more than 60 times in the past 50 years.
I didn't realize it but this this has been used many times since Bush took office, I couldn't find the exact statistics but it sounds like its been used more than under any other president. Executive order 13233 gives this right even more breadth as it gives the right to invoke this to allow former Presidents, and the offspring and descendants of former presidents to claim State Secrets Privilege. (So much for looking into the Iran Contra affair under Bush's dad)
The more I know, the more I want to strangle every bureaucrat, politician, judge and official who lets this whole corrupt mess propagate itself. - DavidMA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22so how many more years of this? Please ***** vote America.
- Grayfox777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Yep... the USA becomes more of a plutocracy everyday. :( Corporations have way too much power in this country.
- addicted44, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Except that the program in itself might be a risk to the nation!
Lets change the premise a little bit, and replace spying, and wiretapping without warrants, with another illegal act. Lets assume that President Bush had a program, whereby, all his political opponents were to be assassinated (Murder, or killing people, is allowed in the USA, if due process determines so, e.g. Death Penalty. Similarly, wiretapping, and spying is allowed, if due process is followed, i.e. getting a warrant). Now if there were an enquiry, President Bush could use the same order to prevent the enquiry from happening. In the review, all he would need to say is that if this comes out in public, it would create a scandal of epic proportions, which would destabilize the USA, and make its people lose faith in the govt. Thus causing untold harm to the USA. In such a hypothetical situation, would you still claim that it was crazy liberals who think that there should be an enquiry?
@pabster: What need was there to start throwing words that lead to partisan discussion (liberal) into what was trying to be a rational argument? FYI, I am as conservative as conservative can get, but last I checked, Conservativism was about small government, not about spending more than any administration before you. It was about increasing state rights, and reducing federal rights, not about creating Federal Laws (No Child Left Behind, Stem Cell Research reductions, Massive federal limitations on medical marijuana, illegal federal wiretapping) that absolutely denied states any power whatsoever.
Get this straight, just because George Bush is Republican, does not make him conservative. In the interests of space, I have just given 2 major conservative ideologies that he has broken. There are certainly many more. - dekkerd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Not if they push off until after the midterms...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Yes, everyone does indeed know about the fraud and abuses of power in the US regime. There are those who do nothing about it. And there are those who support it, the true enemy, your neighbor.
- jnosanov, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18Spooner why do you support Bush?
Regarding the above definition of treason... the U.S. has been invading sovereign nations since 1897 (Phillipines.) No president has been prosecuted for this because Americans like war and don't often question its purpose when they are called to it (even when it is entirely for the purpose of expanding government power and influence, as in Vietnam, Iraq, and South America). Of course war is rarely the answer, but human beings as a group are slow learners. It will certainly be our undoing someday. - raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -5/+22Should note the concept of "checks and balances" is merely a concept, despite many textbooks depicting it as a policy behind US law.
There's no obligation, for US law to refect that concept... no has there ever been documented indication that laws were made to fit that concept.
The concept is merely to illustrate that the 3 branches cover different aspects of government work. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Lol, do you think that Bush could invoke the states secrets privilege to block his own impeachment trial? Now that would really be something.
- Arcotik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16"FISA was made by a president, it can be ignored by a president."
Ok, this government was created by the people - so I should just be able to ignore it right? At least by your infallible logic. - Bogtha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17> it's like watergate all over again, with the president trying to cling on to power with whatever means possible.
I wish it *was* like Watergate all over again. When Watergate hit the press, there was immediate scandal, the president was going to be impeached, and he was forced to resign. These days, presidents only get impeached if it's entertaining. Talking about wiretaps isn't entertaining, but blowjobs sure are. - sgbooth, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17@raccettura: Whoever told you SEPARATION OF POWERS is only policy needs a serious bitch slapping. The separation of powers, just like Federalism (the federal government is a government of LIMITED power), is one of the most basic fundamentals of our entire country.
If you think its merely policy, take a look at the Constitution. Article I defines the Legislative branch. Article II defines the Executive branch. Article III defines the Judicial branch. Do you think this is a mere coincident? Each branch has its functions. Legislature creates law, Executive executes, and Judiciary interprets and applies the laws. Separation of powers is one of the most essential and unique features of our form of government. What do you think an "activist court" is? A court that gave the finger to the president?
@pseudojd: "FISA was made by a president, it can be ignored by a president."
The president signs the law and then EXECUTES it (hence, executive branch). Though that's it, interpreting the language has enormous amounts of power. Legislature makes all laws. Ideally, the president merely signs it or vetoes it (presidential signing statements are worthless). What good would it be if the president said what the law was, and then did whatever the hell he wanted? The president is not a legislator. Many people believe that the president exceeded his authority by circumventing a law (FISA), thereby violating the Separation of Powers and reaching into the legislative process.
I also think that the court will dismiss the case and it will go up on appeal. A district court judge doesn't want to touch this with a 1000 foot pole. The circuit court might hear it and decide. But ultimately, this case is headed right to the supreme court. All bets are off there. - RocketMike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17"President Bush has violated the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) when he chose to spy on US citizens without obtaining a warrant from the courts."
johnnylin: read curtis' sentence a bit more carefully:
"Not just President Bush (which has never broken the law in a justifiable manner in my opinion)!"
He's saying Bush *has* broken the law, and not in a justifiable manner. - RobotCitizen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Translation: "Whether or not we have a secret is a secret."
- adodikan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14If the government doesn't feel we should know something, it seems pretty clear that something is not working properly. Since it is _our_ Government we _should_ be able to have access to all information regarding its dealings. Especially with a private company that provides services to MILLIONS of customers. We are heading down a very dangerous path in this country with the elected administration using an war on terror(that cannot be won given the entire concept of 'terrorism') and national security as excuse for curbing civil rights here and personal privacy there.
Over two hundred years ago James Madison said, "If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." It has taken over two centuries but we have finally reached that status.
How lucky for those in power that people don't think. - fu_fish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16Rarely used? Bush has used this executive privilege more that a few times in his tenure. I can think of 3 cases right offhand and I don't remember the last count I've read. If he doesn't hold the record for most times exercising this privilege then he's got to be closing in on it.
- EODMpink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Until the corruption and abuse truly disrupts American's daily lives they won't give two licks & a ***** what the hell is going on in the world.
- szelij, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15What the *****? So the EFF can't appeal to the supreme court or could it? Can they make it a landmark precedent case while their at it?
Seriously though...it's like watergate all over again, with the president trying to cling on to power with whatever means possible. Man, the system is ***** up. - Saintlink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14We have the right to know if the President was doing something legally or illegaly. Call your congressmen immeadately and let them know that this isn't going to stand!
Also, while you're looking at the EFF vs ATT going down, have a look at this:
http://news.com.com/Congress+may+consider+mandatory+ISP+snooping/2100-1028_3-6066608.html?tag=nefd.top - swordedge, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16At least they got Bushes attention.
EFF's next move will need the congress, and they probably won't get it since it is controlled by the same party as bush. This suite is dead - tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14Sibel Edmonds
http://www.justacitizen.com/
Quoting the ACLU
"Edmonds, a former Middle Eastern language specialist hired by the FBI shortly after 9/11, was fired in 2002 after repeatedly reporting serious security breaches and misconduct in the agency's translation program. She challenged her retaliatory dismissal by filing suit in federal court. Last July, the district court dismissed her case when Attorney General John Ashcroft invoked the so-called state secrets privilege. The ACLU is representing Edmonds in the appeal."
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/18815prs20050112.html - Ruckus21, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"[T]he fact that the United States will assert the state secrets privilege should
not be construed as a confirmation or denial of any of Plaintiffs allegations, either about AT&T or the alleged surveillance activities,"
That screams guilty in the mind of any reasonable American. - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13At least five major cases:
Wen Ho Lee case (Notra Trulock)
Sibel Edmonds
Maher Arar (Canadian, innocent, tortured)
Reagan/Bush I presidential papers
EFF vs. AT&T
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Secrets_Privilege - drizek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13the supreme court=the president=congress.
There are no checks and balances in the bush administration. - kensho, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Yeh your skype communications are encrypted using a proprietary unreleased non-opensource algorithm.... that should make you feel secure.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13The information age tells us the information that we want to hear. Most people don't want to hear about anything other than who J-Lo is f*cking these days. As long as this country is just obliquely fascist not much will happen. The status quo is a powerfull force in this country.
We have refused to pay the price of freedom as told by Thomas Jefferson, eternal vigilance. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Of the 60 times this privilege has been invoked judges have only denied it 5 times.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12Negative, its been sounding like V for Vendetta for long before the movie came out. The bush administration was the first thing that came to my mind when i saw that movie though
- MikeSD34, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Haven't we realized that security through obscurity is no security at all?
What could be such a threat to national security that keeping it a secret would destroy or irreparably damage the country? - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15I hate you and everything you believe in.
- Punani, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@sspooner: I find it a tad difficult for you to assert your comment as a "legitimate viewpoint" when you are calling the EFF a bunch of "crazed loonies." Though, the EFF is certainly not without its flaws, resorting to ad hominem attacks doesn't help your credibility.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I was in Iraq during the '04 presidential elections. Believe me, I really wanted to vote! The only method is absentee ballots, but not everyone got them over there, and the ones that did make it though the super slow mail weren't counted anyways. Sigh.
- pgm_01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12There is no spoon. Furthermore if there was a spoon, speaking about said spoon would endanger the lives of Americans and therefore you may not speak about said spoon which may or may not exist.
Schrodinger Lives :D
Maybe - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Your best option is to elect Democrats to the House of Representatives, because they can and will investigate Bush's wiretapping/FISA lawbreaking, and Iraq war profiteering by Halliburton and the usual suspects. Unlike the judiciary, they have a better shot at compelling Bush to release evidence.
So even if your Republican congressperson isn't some fundamentalist extremist, if you value your privacy you should kick them out anyway, because otherwise nothing will change. - seenthefuture, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@sspooner
Go to Iraq and support your president; watch out for those roadside bombs.
The rest of you, legal system this, corrupt that, quote from some history book...it's all about the benjamins baby!!
WAKE THE F*CK UP! -
Show 51 - 100 of 177 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is